-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
[OT] How much of history do we really know?
- Thread starter reapersaurus
- Start date
hunter1828
Butte Hole Surfer
There is historical fact and there is historical interpretation. Historical fact is "what", historical interpretation is "why". Many of you are getting the two confused.
Fact is far more important than interpretation. Fact should be solid enough (if indeed it is fact) that it isn't debatable. Interpretation, on the other hand, is debatable depending on sex, age, religion, culture, ethnicity, political bent, etc.
It is a fact that Jack the Ripper existed. I've never met anyone that disputes this. Why he did what he did and who he was are debated and will continue to be debated. However, at this point in time the fact that we know he existed and he did what he did is far, far more important than who he was and why he did what he did.
It is a fact that many, many Jews (and others) were murdered by the Nazis. Whether it was 3 million or 6 million is debatable depending on your interpretation of various written accounts. This will continue to be debated for decades, if not centuries. However, whether it was 3 million instead of 6 million does not make it any less of an atrocity and therefore is no where near as important as the simple fact that millions of Jews were murdered by Nazis.
We know many, many facts from world history. We know dates, we know places, we know names. We know more than enough to have a relatively accurate world-view of the history of Earth and each of it's countries. What we don't know is the whys of everything. That's interpretation and is far different than historical fact.
hunter1828
Fact is far more important than interpretation. Fact should be solid enough (if indeed it is fact) that it isn't debatable. Interpretation, on the other hand, is debatable depending on sex, age, religion, culture, ethnicity, political bent, etc.
It is a fact that Jack the Ripper existed. I've never met anyone that disputes this. Why he did what he did and who he was are debated and will continue to be debated. However, at this point in time the fact that we know he existed and he did what he did is far, far more important than who he was and why he did what he did.
It is a fact that many, many Jews (and others) were murdered by the Nazis. Whether it was 3 million or 6 million is debatable depending on your interpretation of various written accounts. This will continue to be debated for decades, if not centuries. However, whether it was 3 million instead of 6 million does not make it any less of an atrocity and therefore is no where near as important as the simple fact that millions of Jews were murdered by Nazis.
We know many, many facts from world history. We know dates, we know places, we know names. We know more than enough to have a relatively accurate world-view of the history of Earth and each of it's countries. What we don't know is the whys of everything. That's interpretation and is far different than historical fact.
hunter1828
reapersaurus
Explorer
Do you remember where, Thanee?Thanee said:Hehe, I think I even read the first three posts in a different thread here!
Weird!
For the life of me, I"m blanking on the genesis of this.....
hunter1828
Butte Hole Surfer
It should be remembered (or known) that often as time passes and researchers dig into the past that new and previously unknown original documents will come to life. This often changes perspective and interpretation immensely, as the previoulsy unknown material fills in blanks or clarifies unclear situations. Such may be the case with the aforementioned Alamo story. It isn't always easy to get the new information out to the general public as academics will argue it and demand proof-positive of it's validity. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, either, as it keeps nut jobs from making things up and say "Hey, look! I found this old journal and it says..." (though this still happens...a lot 
).
This thread is really interesting to me right now as I am currently writing a paper which I intend to present at the 2006 Fur Trade Symposium in Chadron, NE. The paper is tentatively titled "What Did You Give the Indians for their Beads: Myths and Misconceptions of the Fur Trade by the Traveling Public".
One of the things I'm doing with the paper is examining where the myths and misconceptions come from. I've decided there are four main sources of myths and misconceptions (and this applies to all history): Hollywood, Popular Fiction, Poorly Research History and Bad Interpretation.
To quote from the rough draft of my paper (information copyright 2003 Robert W. Thomson):
Hollywood - Films and television shows are often where many people learn their "history". From Dances with Wolves to Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, from The Far Horizon to Little House on the Prairie, myths of the American and Canadian West are perpetuated over and over. The traveling public, watching these movies and shows at home, absorbs the information presented as fact. "You mean Hollywood lied to us?" is a question I was once asked in complete seriousness.
Popular Fiction - Historical novels and Westerns have been popular since Owen Wister's The Virginian, or even since the era of the dime novel. However, as with films and television shows, these novels often change or embellish historical fact for the purposes of drama. Readers, even historians, can fall victim to believing the written word of a novel for historical fact. "I love history. I've read just about every book Louis Lamore wrote," was a statement made to an interpreter at Fort Union [Trading Post National Historic Site] a few years ago. Perhaps the worst example of popular fiction passing for history is Dr. Grace Hebbard's novel about Sacagawea. The information in Dr. Hebbard's novel is now often taught as fact in many grade school and high school American History classes.
Poorly Researched History - Even history books get things wrong. There are a variety of reason for this, ranging from sloppy or inadequate research to hidden agendss. While a text with inadequate research may be written with nothing bu the best of intentions, leaving out pertinent information will change the facts of the story and change how the story is perceived by readers. It should be noted that not every text with inadequate research is because the author was sloppy or lazy. It may very well be because pertinent information was not available at the time the book was researched and written. It is this reason that many classic "standards" of fur trade history are falling by the wayside. Hiram Chittenden's two-volume history, The American Fur Trade in the Far West, was considered the standard introductory work for many, many years. But more comprehensive works by researchers with access to previously unavailable or unknown source material have corrected the inadvertant errors of Chittenden. Wood and Thiesen's Early Fur Trade on the Northern Plains, Wishart's Fur Trade of the American West and Sunder's The Fur Trade on the Upper Missouri have become the new standard introductory works for the fur trade of the American West. By far, hidden agendas are much worse than inadequate research. Many writers today often set out with a preconceived notion of the fur trade and Indian/white relations, writing their book to espouse that notion and only quoting the source material that supports that notion. While Chittenden, DeVoto and Vestal can should still be read for their interpretation (though not necessarily their facts), the insidious nature of a historian with a hidden agenda creates a far worse picture. Their works can infect the public with a sense of false "correctness" about a given aspect of history. After all, a historian researched and wrote it; it MUST be true and correct. Such unprofessional works can also be harmful in another way. Over time, people may become jaded by such books and begin to think of all historians in the same bad light. "You historians just make things up as you go, anyway," was a comment made to a fellow Park Ranger once.
Bad Interpretation - Worse even than poorly researched history is bad interpretation. Public historians shoudl be the bastions of historical truth, interpreting the fur trade [or other historical topic] accuretly and objectively. However, poor research, agendas or even laziness often lead to myths and non-thruths being perpetuated [in museums and at historic sites]. Several times I have heard "That's not what I was told last time I was here." Not only does bad interpretation leave the traveling public with new misconceptions, or "confirm" existing misconceptions, but creates a conflict in them over whom to believe, this interpreter or the one they listened to ten years ago (or last week). This, too, can lead to the public becoming jaded and not believing or trusting what public historians/interpreters say anywhere or anytime.
-----
Sorry for the long post, but I thought my thoughts relevant.
hunter1828
Park Ranger, historian & interpreter
).This thread is really interesting to me right now as I am currently writing a paper which I intend to present at the 2006 Fur Trade Symposium in Chadron, NE. The paper is tentatively titled "What Did You Give the Indians for their Beads: Myths and Misconceptions of the Fur Trade by the Traveling Public".
One of the things I'm doing with the paper is examining where the myths and misconceptions come from. I've decided there are four main sources of myths and misconceptions (and this applies to all history): Hollywood, Popular Fiction, Poorly Research History and Bad Interpretation.
To quote from the rough draft of my paper (information copyright 2003 Robert W. Thomson):
Hollywood - Films and television shows are often where many people learn their "history". From Dances with Wolves to Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, from The Far Horizon to Little House on the Prairie, myths of the American and Canadian West are perpetuated over and over. The traveling public, watching these movies and shows at home, absorbs the information presented as fact. "You mean Hollywood lied to us?" is a question I was once asked in complete seriousness.
Popular Fiction - Historical novels and Westerns have been popular since Owen Wister's The Virginian, or even since the era of the dime novel. However, as with films and television shows, these novels often change or embellish historical fact for the purposes of drama. Readers, even historians, can fall victim to believing the written word of a novel for historical fact. "I love history. I've read just about every book Louis Lamore wrote," was a statement made to an interpreter at Fort Union [Trading Post National Historic Site] a few years ago. Perhaps the worst example of popular fiction passing for history is Dr. Grace Hebbard's novel about Sacagawea. The information in Dr. Hebbard's novel is now often taught as fact in many grade school and high school American History classes.
Poorly Researched History - Even history books get things wrong. There are a variety of reason for this, ranging from sloppy or inadequate research to hidden agendss. While a text with inadequate research may be written with nothing bu the best of intentions, leaving out pertinent information will change the facts of the story and change how the story is perceived by readers. It should be noted that not every text with inadequate research is because the author was sloppy or lazy. It may very well be because pertinent information was not available at the time the book was researched and written. It is this reason that many classic "standards" of fur trade history are falling by the wayside. Hiram Chittenden's two-volume history, The American Fur Trade in the Far West, was considered the standard introductory work for many, many years. But more comprehensive works by researchers with access to previously unavailable or unknown source material have corrected the inadvertant errors of Chittenden. Wood and Thiesen's Early Fur Trade on the Northern Plains, Wishart's Fur Trade of the American West and Sunder's The Fur Trade on the Upper Missouri have become the new standard introductory works for the fur trade of the American West. By far, hidden agendas are much worse than inadequate research. Many writers today often set out with a preconceived notion of the fur trade and Indian/white relations, writing their book to espouse that notion and only quoting the source material that supports that notion. While Chittenden, DeVoto and Vestal can should still be read for their interpretation (though not necessarily their facts), the insidious nature of a historian with a hidden agenda creates a far worse picture. Their works can infect the public with a sense of false "correctness" about a given aspect of history. After all, a historian researched and wrote it; it MUST be true and correct. Such unprofessional works can also be harmful in another way. Over time, people may become jaded by such books and begin to think of all historians in the same bad light. "You historians just make things up as you go, anyway," was a comment made to a fellow Park Ranger once.
Bad Interpretation - Worse even than poorly researched history is bad interpretation. Public historians shoudl be the bastions of historical truth, interpreting the fur trade [or other historical topic] accuretly and objectively. However, poor research, agendas or even laziness often lead to myths and non-thruths being perpetuated [in museums and at historic sites]. Several times I have heard "That's not what I was told last time I was here." Not only does bad interpretation leave the traveling public with new misconceptions, or "confirm" existing misconceptions, but creates a conflict in them over whom to believe, this interpreter or the one they listened to ten years ago (or last week). This, too, can lead to the public becoming jaded and not believing or trusting what public historians/interpreters say anywhere or anytime.
-----
Sorry for the long post, but I thought my thoughts relevant.
hunter1828
Park Ranger, historian & interpreter
Particle_Man
Explorer
reapersaurus said:
I remember! You were in the Women Warriors thread and then you talked about Nazis and some moderator decided that the thread should remain about women warriors and not Nazis (even if there were women warrior Nazis like in bad porn movies) and so you got a new thread about how much we know about history so people could talk about nazis and what we do or don't know abou them and other stuff like that.
It goes without saying that there are a lot of things we do not know.
It also goes without saying that there have been many misinterpretations of the past.
However, where exactly does this take us? Honestly, it seems to be little more than a very old brand of intellectual cynicism sparked more by cultural impacts and perhaps, a result of broadening perspectives (easier to call into doubt 200 interpretations of what originally was 1 truth), than any nugget of amazing truth that we should consider a worthy platform for the complete deconstruction or reevaluation of history... that's done in academe already.
It isn't as though historians do not constantly analyze the work of their peers, and there's hardly a lack of theory out there on the impact of natural human bias on the development of history. There are historians who do nothing but study the study of history itself (rather than seek to reevaluate it by making their own connections in history).
All that said, I am very reluctant to turn around and say "Wow, I sure do know how idiotic all these people were," wrapped up in fancy words or just blurted out. Beyond that, I'm even more reluctant to throw it all out--throw any of it out really, even the errors. They are to be addressed and examined as they too have some hint to them of the thoughts and beliefs of those who wrote them.
... oh, and History proper is actually what we're pretty much sure did indeed happen. History is not the Past... it's the collection of what modern academic research considers valid, factual information. I'll whole-heartedly agree that we do not know as much about the past as we should, but pushing that accusation into the realm of History takes serious consideration.
It also goes without saying that there have been many misinterpretations of the past.
However, where exactly does this take us? Honestly, it seems to be little more than a very old brand of intellectual cynicism sparked more by cultural impacts and perhaps, a result of broadening perspectives (easier to call into doubt 200 interpretations of what originally was 1 truth), than any nugget of amazing truth that we should consider a worthy platform for the complete deconstruction or reevaluation of history... that's done in academe already.
It isn't as though historians do not constantly analyze the work of their peers, and there's hardly a lack of theory out there on the impact of natural human bias on the development of history. There are historians who do nothing but study the study of history itself (rather than seek to reevaluate it by making their own connections in history).
All that said, I am very reluctant to turn around and say "Wow, I sure do know how idiotic all these people were," wrapped up in fancy words or just blurted out. Beyond that, I'm even more reluctant to throw it all out--throw any of it out really, even the errors. They are to be addressed and examined as they too have some hint to them of the thoughts and beliefs of those who wrote them.
... oh, and History proper is actually what we're pretty much sure did indeed happen. History is not the Past... it's the collection of what modern academic research considers valid, factual information. I'll whole-heartedly agree that we do not know as much about the past as we should, but pushing that accusation into the realm of History takes serious consideration.
Last edited:
Heretic Apostate
First Post
There's a book entitled, "I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode or Not".
It's one of a series of books by the author showing how myth has taken over even recent history. People want myths, they don't want history.
I really recommend it for people who wish to be disillusioned about American "history."
It's one of a series of books by the author showing how myth has taken over even recent history. People want myths, they don't want history.
I really recommend it for people who wish to be disillusioned about American "history."
Desdichado
Hero
Of course we know quite a bit about history. There's plenty we don't know, though, and sometimes what we don't know means what we think we understand is completely wrong. Take a look at the Spirit Cave Mummy and Kennewick Man, for example. Almost completely negates the Clovis first traditional view of the original peopleing of the American continents.
But this is a misleading statement in and of itself. We know quite a bit about history, but what's truly interesting about history is what we can deduce from what we know. Because what we can deduce is naturally only based on the information we have at hand, we could potentially uncover some missing piece of the puzzle that completely changes our view of history.
Then again, the same thing can be said about any other field of inquiry. Look at what the germ theory did for medicine for example, or what Newton did for physics, or what John Ostrom and Robert Bakker did for dinosaurs.
That doesn't invalidate anything we know about any of those fields, it just means that we now know more, and that changes our interpretation of what it means.
But this is a misleading statement in and of itself. We know quite a bit about history, but what's truly interesting about history is what we can deduce from what we know. Because what we can deduce is naturally only based on the information we have at hand, we could potentially uncover some missing piece of the puzzle that completely changes our view of history.
Then again, the same thing can be said about any other field of inquiry. Look at what the germ theory did for medicine for example, or what Newton did for physics, or what John Ostrom and Robert Bakker did for dinosaurs.
That doesn't invalidate anything we know about any of those fields, it just means that we now know more, and that changes our interpretation of what it means.
Klaatu B. Nikto
First Post
MaxKaladin said:
I've read that the diary popped up around the mid 50s during the Davey Crocket craze. Seems kinda coincidental like the Piltdown man.
Last edited:
reapersaurus
Explorer
umm.. where do you get off spreading misinformation like this, without even checking on it?!Particle_Man said:
Thank you for pointing me to the right thread (i believe it was the Warrior Woman thread) - I looked at it, and since the original post in chronological order has been removed, I think I posted in reply to this:
I might have replied to one after that, but that's basically the context.
I NEVER mentioned Nazis, and I'm not happy that you would say that I did.
I only posted once to that thread, bringing up the discussion of "what do we really know about history", and everbody else went the interesting directions they did with it.
Now, on to Henry's actions (he who split the thread without posting that he did here):
If you're going to split off a thread, please don't misrepresent my post by not telling the reader how it came to be.
By starting an OT thread in my name, and only posting an out-of-context statement of mine, it really looks different than was intended, and I don't appreciate that little move.
I understand why you did it, but next time, please add in a Moderator's note about it, at the least.
Thx for listening.
Similar Threads
